Statistics

[rmath]

Some food for thought.
Stats for AQU.
1.) I used all horses entered in these races. Absolutely no filters.
2.) Used best of last 3 at a comparable distance when possible.
3.) Sorted contenders down to final 5 using Primary Line Scores.
4.) Marked all New Pace horses.
5.) I marked the top 4 ranked horses from the Gap Fire ratings.

Eliminations: All horses not ranked in top 4 VDC, Gap fire or NP.
7 wins in 300 eliminated .02 with no rating at all.
Next I eliminated any horses with only one rating. 18 more eliminated 6%.
This left me with 275/300 wins in my final contenders 92%of all wins.

From these final horses I ranked them according to their ranks
a#1 rating won 145
a#2 rating won 73
a#3 rating won 32
a#4 rating won 25

[dogkatcher]

rmath, nice research. I have a question regarding your overall rankings. Is each ranking a composite of the 3 rankings and if so how would you rank the
New Pace contenders. I realize there are 4 horses, but would be interested to know how you decide who is 1 through 4. Thanks so much for all the great
work you do and sharing with our community.

All the Best,
John

[rmath]

Dogkatcher, NP is not used in the final rankings because there is no way to separate them. NP ratings are only a corrollary.
once you get down to the final contenders I use the vdc & gap fire rankings to rank the final order. I concentrate on the 2 or 3 horses that have a 1 or 2 rating.
The only way I consider a horse with a 3 or 4 is if their post time odds are above 8/1.
Hope this answers you question.

[Boe777]

What is gap fire? Never heard that before.

[rmath]

Boe777, Gapfire is a rating method listed on the internet.
The cost is 10.00 per month or 60.00 per year.
You can download as many tracks as you like each day.
The web site is WWW.gapfire.com

I have found their numbers to be quite predictable when used in conjunction with Rdss vdc and NP.
Check out the web site and contact Kevin Parks with any questions.
He usually gets back to me within a few hours of any questions I have had.
rmath

PS. Dogkatcher, was my answer okay ? If not I could post a few examples of how I separate the final contenders.

[dogkatcher]

rmath, thanks for checking back with me, you made clear what was puzzling about the rankings. Been in Vegas for the HPWS, thus the delay in my response, should have put you in my pocket for a better finish. Thanks again.

John

[barb craven]

I have a question rmath, When you use New pace are you using the two early and two late or the rankings on the NP page.
You are doing an awesome job, Congratulations.
Would you mind posting some examples of how you separate your final contenders as you offered. I would be very interested in seeing exactly how, I have a pretty good idea but would like to see if I`m totally on the right page. Thanks.

[rmath]

Thanks Barb,Here are a few examples:
horse #1 : vdc 1 , gapfire #1 , NP E2
horse #2 : vdc 3 , gapfire #2 , NP L1
horse # 3 : vdc 2 , gapfire #4, NP L2
horse #4 : vdc 4 , gapfire # 3 , NP E1
Horse # 1 , is ranked #1 and is my main bet (win% is 40% ) if he goes off above 8/5 or 2/1 then I would have a playable race.
Then both horses #2 & #3 would become my second horses because they both have a ranking of 2. I would separate them by odds and bet the higher priced one to win unless both are above 7/1 or higher then I would bet both.
The #4 horse has a 3 ranking and would have to go off at 10/1 before I would even consider a 2.00 or 3.00 saver wager.
Most of my bets are confined to races with 2 or 3 horses that are rated on all 3 ratings. The NP ratings are taken from the entry screen. I will look at the NP screen to see if a horse that is ranked 1 or 2 vdc or gapfire could be considered as a price only horse.
I hope this example helps. If you want another just ask.
If you look at my stats for Aqu you will see that .91666 of all winners at AQU are in the horses that are at least dual qualifers on vdc, gapfire or NP, and the majority of these are triple qualifers.
I find this is really surprising since a lot of these 300 races were MDN. races that I would not normally even look at , but because they were part of the pic4 contest it was necessary to run them.
What I have tried to do is what Dave S. called a double or triple Monty.
The combination of VDC, GF, and NP works quite well together.
Not everyone will come up with the same exact order of horses that I get only because we all will not use the same pacelines , so our vdc rankings will be a little different.
I wish you well, and if you have any more questions I wiil be glad to share with everyone.
Richard

[Boe777]

Hi rmath,
Thanks for the explanation on the GapFire, I have another question,
What is NP? I could not find it anyehere on RDSS.

[rmath]

Boe777, NP is a method of rating horses developed by Dave Schwartz.
In order to use it you have to purchase it and then you will be able to use it. The program is included on RDSS.
I think that if you want to get it you should talk to Ted.
I suggest that you read some of the other posts on NP and ask some of the other guys like Pino and Mike sal for their opinions on its use.
Several others have been using it and have commented on it , but Mike & Pino have published the most comprehensive study of it.
My own personal opinion is that it is best used in conjunction with at least one other program and my personal favorite is RDSS.

[barb craven]

Thanks very much Richard. I'm going to go back over some of my lost races and see if this applies to other tracks as well. I'll ask if I need more clarification. Very interesting indeed.

[rmath]

Barb , I have used it on several other tracks and all have been very consistent.
I usually get 88 to 95 % of all the winners in the double and triple rated horses.
Good Luck and keep me posted.
Richard